Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in a suit for possession where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is his tenant but fails to prove the tenancy, Article 142 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 applies, or whether the suit is governed by Article 144 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908.
Analysis: Article 142 applies only where the plaintiff sues on the footing that he was dispossessed or discontinued possession, and the plaintiff must then prove that the suit was brought within twelve years of such dispossession or discontinuance. Where the plaint contains no allegation of dispossession or discontinuance, and the tenancy set up by the plaintiff is not proved, the failure to prove tenancy does not by itself establish dispossession or adverse possession. In such a case the suit falls outside Article 142 and is governed by the residuary Article 144, under which the burden lies on the defendant to prove adverse proprietary possession for more than twelve years.
Conclusion: Article 142 does not apply merely because the plaintiff failed to prove tenancy; Article 144 alone applies, and the answer to the referred question is in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.